From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@huawei.com>
Cc: namhyung@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Remove hardcoding of ___GFP_xxx bitmasks
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 09:40:29 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170428074028.GF8143@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f741d053-4303-5441-21bc-ec86bca1164c@huawei.com>
On Thu 27-04-17 17:06:05, Igor Stoppa wrote:
>
>
> On 27/04/17 16:41, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 26-04-17 18:29:08, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> > [...]
> >> If you prefer to have this patch only as part of the larger patchset,
> >> I'm also fine with it.
> >
> > I agree that the situation is not ideal. If a larger set of changes
> > would benefit from this change then it would clearly add arguments...
>
> Ok, then I'll send it out as part of the larger RFC set.
>
>
> >> Also, if you could reply to [1], that would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > I will try to get to it but from a quick glance, yet-another-zone will
> > hit a lot of opposition...
>
> The most basic questions, that I hope can be answered with Yes/No =) are:
>
> - should a new zone be added after DMA32?
>
> - should I try hard to keep the mask fitting a 32bit word - at least for
> hose who do not use the new zone - or is it ok to just stretch it to 64
> bits?
Do not add a new zone, really. What you seem to be looking for is an
allocator on top of the page/memblock allocator which does write
protection on top. I understand that you would like to avoid object
management duplication but I am not really sure how much you can re-use
what slab allocators do already, anyway. I will respond to the original
thread to not mix things together.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-28 7:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-26 13:35 [PATCH 0/1] mm: Improve consistency of ___GFP_xxx masks Igor Stoppa
2017-04-26 13:35 ` [PATCH 1/1] Remove hardcoding of ___GFP_xxx bitmasks Igor Stoppa
2017-04-26 14:47 ` Michal Hocko
2017-04-26 15:29 ` Igor Stoppa
2017-04-27 12:16 ` Question on ___GFP_NOLOCKDEP - Was: " Igor Stoppa
2017-04-27 13:35 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-10 15:24 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-04-27 12:18 ` Igor Stoppa
2017-04-27 13:41 ` Michal Hocko
2017-04-27 14:06 ` Igor Stoppa
2017-04-28 7:40 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2017-04-28 7:43 ` Igor Stoppa
2017-04-28 8:13 ` Igor Stoppa
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170428074028.GF8143@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=igor.stoppa@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).